tv News Nation MSNBC April 2, 2012 2:00pm-3:00pm EDT
behalf, my most sincere sympathies to the family and relatives of former president for his lamentable death yesterday. tomorrow, we will be rendering homage to him in mexico. the reasons for which we are here today at this summit of the north american leaders with president barack obama and the prime minister of canada, we've come through a workday that has been very fruitful and fluid with an exchange of opinions and progress to the benefit of our respective citizens. i'm also very thankful to my two colleagues for the openness with which we have broached some very complex items on our working agenda. i recognize and value their enormous commitment to our common region.
the leaders of north america share a vision of a strong solitaire competitive region that is able to successfully face head on the challenges of today. we agree that our common challenges can only be faced together and there in lays the importance of having dialogue, strong dialogue amongst our three countries. the data that president obama has just given us is very important that our trade has exceeded $1 trillion for the first time. and i think that that is not separate from a reality that has to be underscored. this very complex world, full of economic problems and severe crises. canada, the united states, and mexico are three countries that are growing right now, and generating jobs today. that growth and those millions of jobs, many of them have to do
precisely with the greatest trade exchanges that we have ever seen amongst these great nations. i would say the potential of north america, tied to these three countries, is such that within our own nations we have a great deal to do to make the most of these opportunities for greater exchanges amongst our peoples. as we've mentioned today, we have progressed on various fronts. for instance, we've advanced on the deregulation in our countries, in our own countries, as well as amongst our countries. we have progressed as well in harmonization of certain standards that facilitate trade. we've also progressed in our case on the bilateral infrastructure and all of this has led, of course, to the benefit of canadian, mexican, and american families. another line of ideas, i would
also say, that the three nations have renewed their decision to strengthen, cooperation at the international level, particularly in issues as sensitive as the security of our citizens. we have reiterated the values upon which our societies were founded. democracy, liberty, justice. the respect for human rights and today, the political dialogue amont us is perhaps stronger than ever. we have renewed certain principles of our existence and of our challenges. the principle of shared responsibility, the exchange of information, and especially the strengthening of our institutions that has to be the guide of our cooperation. clearly i expressed to president obama and to prime minister harper that the fight that mexico is experiencing for a safer north america also requires the strengthening of
national actions amongst other things, to stop the traffic of weapons. to combat with greater strength money laundering and of course, to reduce the demand for drugs that strengthens criminal organizations. i also expressed to president obama and to prime minister harper that mexico recognizes the commitment that they have undertaken to progress along those lines. it is also necessary to strengthen the regional security focus, and in order to do this, we need to include our neighbors and central american partners who are also facing serious problems, and who need our solidarity. the three countries have agreed to establish a joint dialogue mechanism with a central american integration system, in support of the efforts undertaken by central american nations to fight organized crime
and favor of regional security that benefits us all. in this meeting we have broached the topic of the regional economy. the leaders of north america agree the united states, canada and mexico must continue to delve deep entire our relationships so as to generate greater well-being in all three countries. our governments recognize that it is absolutely necessary to continue to fully comply with nafta. i am convinced that if we work together, we will become much more competitive than many areas of the world that we are competing with today. mexico's position is that the solution to the complex economic situation experienced by the world today is not a return to protectionist practices that only isolate countries, reduce
competitiveness of economies, and send investment scurrying, but that part of the problem and part of the investment thate need to see in the world economy is to see a delving deeper into our economies and making the most of our advantages that show our complimentary labor technologies, natural resources. only then will we have success in a world that competes ferociously by regions. the three countries have renewed our commitment to broaden the productive, the supply chains of the region, that will be even more interconnected, supporting especially the small and medium scale companies. mexican exports to the world represent 37%, or have rather, 37% of american content. in other words, so american
exports are american exports, and they generate millions of jobs for the region. and in that lays the need to work even more in this region, and on a clear tri-lateral deregulation. for instance, in nano materials and in missions standards for some vehicles. today we also agreed to work in a coordinated fashion on actions that we will be adopting to modernize infrastructure and for border management. after ten years, the last two years we've seen three n border crossing areas between mexico and the united states. after ten years of not having seen one new route. and we continue to work in a coordinated fashion to make our border more dynamic so that it is a bored he of opportunities for progress on both sides of that border. tomorrow here in washington, ministers of economy and trade will be meeting within the
framework of the free trade commission of the nafta so as to continue to work toward achieving these objectives. today, we've seen that prosperity in the region depends on greater integration with full respect of our sovereignties in all fields. and i would like to rejoin forces as soon asossible to the trans pacific partnership and itsnegotiations. we know that mexicans can contribute to a quick and successful conclusion of this project if we join forces in this region where we see the greatest growth in the world, we will be seeing benefits for you our families, our workers and substantially improving the competitiveness of the three countries. we are convinced this will enrich this free trade project.
our country has a clear commitment to economic freedom. we even have the support of the private sector, so as to enter into the tpp. we are a nation that believes in free trade as a true tool to foster growth and development, and we have acted as a result of this. i would like to thank the united states and canada for renewing their support to mexico and its presidency of g-20, as you can, in june of this year, mexico will host the summit of the leaders of the g-20 in los cabos. we are convinced over and above the topics we will be dealing with there the complex environment needs to be an opportunity so that the world can redefine its development models with a firm commitment to the well being of peoples and the care for the environment. ladies and gentlemen, in this summit, the representatives of
the united states, canada and mexico, have undertaken an open constructive dialogue just as corresponds that share values. we've talked about the enormous challenges of working together. and we will be working on building a new era that could not sol dates the right conditions in north america on the basis of a successful partnership, as we have seen so far today. my dear president obama, thk you for your hospitality. >> first of all, i would like to begin by thanking you, president obama, for hosting us so graciously and warmly today. and i would like to offer my sincere condolences to the people of mexico on the passing of the former president high gather had much to do with nafta partnership that we enjoy today.
[ speaking french ] >> canada places the highest value on the friendship and partnership among our three countries. we form one othe world's largest free trade zones which has been of great benefit to all of our nations. we're also effective collaborators in the g-20 in responding to the challenges of the global recession and instability of these past few years. [ speaking french ] as affirmed in our budget last week, our government is focused on creating jobs, growth and long term prosperity for all americans.
i'm especially pleased that the united states has welcomed canada's and mexico's interests in joining the trans pacific partnership. we also had useful discussions on continued cooperation in managing our borders, streamlining regulations, securing global supply chains and advancing clean energy. in addition, we've announced a broadened plan for north amican pan demmic preparedness and a new north america, central america security on fight transamerican crime. finally, we discussed the agenda for the upcoming summit of the americas in colombia. canada looks forward to working with the united states and mexico to promote democratic principles, regional stability and market-based economic growth with our partners in the western hemisphere. and once again, barack and felipe, i look forward to
continuing our useful discussions. >> i think that we'll take a question from each press delegation. so we'll start with you. >> thank you, mr. president. after the last week's arguments at the supreme court, many experts believe there could be a majority, a five-member majority to strike down the individual mandate. if that were to happen, if it were to be ruled unconstitutional, how would you still guarantee health care to the uninsured and those americans who have become insured as a result of the law. and then a question for president calderon and prime minister harper. over the week, governor mitt romney said the u.s. used to promote free enterprise around the world and he said, quote, our president doesn't have the same feelings about american exceptionalism that we do and i think over the last three or four years, some people around the world have begun to question that. my question to the both of you is whether you think that
american influence has declined over the last three to four years. and president obama, if you would like to respond to that, too. >> well, on the second part of your question, you know, it's still primary season for the republican party. they're going to make a decision about who their candidate will be. it's worth noting that i first arrived on the national stage with a speech at the democrat convention that was eirely about american exceptionalism and that my entire career has been a testimony to american exceptionalism. i will cut folks some slack for now because they're still trying to get their nomination. with respect to health care, i'm actually continuing to be confident that the supreme court will uphold the law.
and the reason is because in accordance with precedent out there, it is constitutional. that's not just my opinion, by the way. that's the opinion of legal experts across the ideological spectrum, including two very conservative appellate court justices who said this wasn't even a close case. i think it is important because i watched some of the commentary last week to remind people that this is not an abstract argument. people's lives are affected by the lack of availability of health care, the inaffordability of health care, their inability to get health care because of preexisting conditions. the law that is already in place
has already given 2.5 million young people health care that wouldn't otherwise have it. there are tens of thousands of adults with preexisting conditions who have health care right now because of this law. parents don't have to worry about their children not being able to get health care because they can't be prevented from getting health care as a consequence of a preexisting condition. that's part of this law. millions of seniors are paying less for prescription drugs because of this law. americans all across the country have greater rights and protections with respect to their insurance companies and they're getting preventive care because of this law. that's just the part that has already been implemented. that doesn't speak to the 30 million people who stand to gain coverage once it is ful implemented in 2014. and i think it is important and i think the american people understand, and i think the justices should understand that
in the absence of an individual mandate, you cannot have a mechanism to insure that people with preexisting conditions can actually get health care. so there is not only an economic element to this but there is a humidity element to this. and i hope that's not forgotten in this political debate. ultimately i'm confident the supreme court will not take what would be an unprecedented extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected congress. and i just remind conservative commentators that four years, what we've heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of
judicial restraint. an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. well, a good example. and i'm pretty confident this court will recognize that and not take that step. i'm sorry. as i said, we are confident that this will be over that this will be upheld because it should be upheld. that's not just my opinion. that's the opinion of a whole lot of constitutional law professors and academics and dges and lawyers who examined this law, even if they're not
particularly sympathetic to this particular piece of legislation or my presidency. >> translator: your question was a little local for me and so i'm glad that the president of the united states answered it. i would take advantage of this moment to say that after increasing the budget line for the folk incomance sixfold. and having built more than 1,000 new clinics in the country, we're getting close to reaching universal coverage of health care. full free health care for all people including cancer coverage of the 120 -- 106 million will
have efficient, effective universal health care coverage. i would hope that one of the greatest economies in the world such as the united states could follow our example in reaching this because it was a great thing. >> i don't think you really expect me to intervene in the u.s. presidential election. let me just say this. for canada, this is something that i think transcends governments in canada or administrations here in the ited states. for canada, the united states is and always will be our closest neighbor. our greatest ally and our best friend. and i believe that american leadership is at all times great and indispensable for the world. and i think over the past few years, we've done great things together in terms of the response, both through the g-20 and bilaterally and on the recession and recovery. we had under your leadership,
barack, that successful intervention in libya, our trade relationship is the biggest in the world and growing so i think it has been a tremendous partnership. >> somebody from the mexican press corps. >> translator: good afternoon. you were referring to weapons. we would like to know what president obama said in terms of what will be done to stop the traffic above weapons. president obama, i would like to know what plans your government has in the presidential election process in mexico. what was discussed in terms of the interviews with the candidates in mexico city. and i would like to know for the government of the united states, there is a threat to the country
in the sense on weapons. the weapons have come into the country. are there military leaks of letting the arms come through. what will be done? and for prime minister harper, is the visa requirement going to be removed for mexican? >> translator: my position on this subject is very clear and i would repeat it here. let me broach it from another angle. it has been shown that when there is an excessive, quick availability of weapons in any given society, there is an increase in violence and the murders that goes on many years afterwards. this phenomenon took place in ma places of africa after the civil wars. we've seen it in el salvador, guatemala, eastern europe, in
kosovo, in bosnia. it has happened, it's taken place in many different areas of the world. an we sustained that the assault weapons ban in 2004 coincided almost exactly with the beginning of the harshest, the beginning of the harshest period of violence we've ever seen during my government. we have seized over 140,000 weapons in four years. and i think that -- the vast majority have been assault weapons, ak-57s, he thinks, and the vast majority were sold in gun shops. along the board of the u.s. and mexico. there are approximately 8,000 weapons shops. if we do our accounts, that means that there are approximately nine weapons
stores for each walmart that exists in the united states and mexico. so a good deal of our discussion did touch upon this. but i recognize at the same time, the administrative effort that has been undertaken, particularly by president obama and his administration so that the agencies' control of illegal actions curb this export of weapons in mexico. we've seen a much more active effort in this sense than at any other time in the past. i have a great deal of respect for the u.s. legislation, especially the second amendment. but i know that if we don't stop the traffic of weapons into mexico. also, if we don't have mechanisms to forbid the sale of weapons such as we had in the '90s or for registry of guns at least for assault weapons, then
we are never going to be able to stop the violence in mexico or stop a future turning of those guns upon the u.s. so if i am against the traffic of weapons in mexico, i am against the traffic of weapons anywhere. be that within any circumstance. the government of mexico will never be able to accept anything that has to do with opening this. so president obama has been very clear on the position of his government. we understand the work being done by the agencies set to stop the criminals. this cannot be an obstacle to the cooperation that we have to have amongst mexico and the united states, to stop these criminal activities that underlie this issue and which is one of the greatest obstacles for mexico. i understand the internal problems from a political point
of view in the united states, and i mentioned this publicly in congress in the united states. and i said things exactly the way i believe them. i said them outright. there is a great deal of discrepancy between points of view. it is a very complex political issue. but it is very important to underscore it. and i believe that's the only part of the question that i can answer it and i would say that what president obama has already answered was very well done. >> just very briefly with respect to the presidential elections in mexico, vice president biden met with the candidates to express sentiments similar to what stephen expressed here with regard to the u.s. elections. that is that the friendship between our three criminals, the partnership between our three countries extends beyond and is
more fundamental than any particular party or any particular election. that's the message we have to send with regard to mexico. i've had an excellent working relationship with felipe. i expt to have an excellent working relationship with the next mexican president, whoever that candidate may be. because the underlying common interests that we have economically, socially, culturally, the people to people rim that we have is so important. that it transcends partisan politics. and with respect to the issue of funds, i've made very clear in every meeting i've had with felipe and we've put into practice efforts to stop illegal gun trafficking, north to south. it is a difficult task but it is one that we've taken very seriously and taken some unprecedented steps. we will continue to coordinate closely with the mexican government because we recognize the toll that it has taken with
respect to families and innocent individuals inside of mexico. and this is part of our broader comprehensive cooperation in weakening the grip of narco trafficking within mexico, and we recognize that we have a responsibility to reduce demand for drugs. we have a responsibility to make sure that not only guns but also bulk cash isn't flowing into mexico. and obviously president calderon takes very seriously his responsibility to affect law enforcement within mexico. and i think he has taken courageous steps to do that. we'll keep on partnering together to continue to make progress on this very important issue. >> you asked me about the visa requirement. visa requirement is the really only effective means we have in canada today to deal with large scale bogus refugee claims under our refugee determination
system. legislation that is being implemented and there is legislation before parliament to enhance those changes. that legislation will in the future in years to come will give us tools other than visa requirements to deal with that particular problem. as of today, that remains the only tool at our disposal. >> finally -- >> hello, gentlemen. i have a couple of questions on two critical issues that you were discussing today. one on trade and one on crime. on trade, prime minister harper, why is canada's position at the negotiating table on the transpacific partnership so important to canada? and secondly, to get us there, to be a player, are you willing to give up as a precondition our supply management system? and president obama you said earlier, there needs to be high standards to be there.
i'm wondering whether you think canada has met those high standards. whether you want to us drop our traditional supply and management position. and on crimering with in canada read about the challenges that mexico has on the drug cartels and the horrible violence that occurs down there. but perhaps it is possible that many canadians and perhaps even americans don't see it as affecting their lives. perhaps it doesn't affect their communities. on that issue, why you think do you three gentlemen think that a three-country coordinated approach is necessary to protect our citizens? and prime minister, i think you being the only person that can speak both english and french, if you can do that, please. >> sure. first of all in response to the question on trans pacific partnership, this is our desire to be part of that negotiation. part of canada's ambitious trade agenda. as you know, we are currently in negotiations with over 50 countries around the world, including the european union and japan and india.
so this is obviously a logical extension of our desire. the desire of our government to dramatically broaden our free trade relationships around the world. you know, canada's position on trans pacific partnership is the same as our position in any trade negotiation. we expect to negotiate and debate all manner of issues and we seek ambitious outcomes to free trade agreements. and those negotiations, of course, canada will attempt to promote and defend canada's interests, not just across the economy but in individual sectors as well. on the question, the question of security, look, the security problems are, the security challenge, particularly around the drug trade, is a serious regional problem throughout our
hemisphere that has real impacts. not the kind of governance and security impacts we see maybe in central america and the caribbean but also real serious impacts on the health and safety of communities in o country as well. and as these criminal networks are trans national, it is important that our attempts to fight them be equally trans national. that's why we work together on these initiatives. [ speaking french ]
that's inherent in the process. because each of our countries have their own iosyncrasies. certain industries in the past that have been in the past been protected, certain practices that may be unique to that country but end up creating disadvantages for businesses from other countries, and so it's a process of everybody making adjustments. i don't think canada would be unique in thatful are there areas that we would like to see canada make adjustments? of course. i would think canada will have some areas of complaint of us and everyone would have to make changes to accommodate the larger interests of growing the overall economy and expanding trade and ultimately jobs. so i don't anticipate that there is something unique about canada that wouldn't be true for any of
the other aspirants to forming this trans pacific partnership. with respect to the transnational trade. first and foremost, i think we should be concerned about what's happening in mexico and central america because when you have innocent families and women and children who are being gunned down on the streets, that should be everybody's problem. not just our problem. not just their problem. there is a sense of neighborly regard and concern that has to be part of our calculus and our foreign policy. more practically, the united states shares a border with mexico. if you have this kind of violence and the power of the drug trade as a whole expanding
in countries that are so closely affiliated with us in central american countries. if you start getting a larger and larger space in which they have control over serious chunks of the economy. if they're undermining institutions in these countries, that will impact our capacity to do business in these countries. it could have a spillover effect of our nationals who are living in those countries. tourists that are visiting these countries. it can have a deteriorating effect overall on the nature of our relationship and that's something that we have to pay attention to. and as i said, i think the mexican government has taken this very seriously at great cost to itself. we have an obligation to take it just as seriously in part because we are the ultimate destination for a large chunk of
this market. and that, stephen and i were trading notes, in places like the united states and canada, this is not just an issue of the traditionally was very urban. this is disseminated across our communities. and you go into rural communities and you've got methamphetamine sales that are devastating. young and old alike. and some of that is originally sourced in mexico. so even in the remotest, most isolated parts of canada or the united states, they're being impacted by this drug trade. and we've got to work cooperatively to deal with it. >> translator: i would like to look at i from another standpoint. the security of north america is
absolutely tied to each of its member states. there cannot be full security in this country or in canada or in mexico if we do not have a system that actually enables the cooperation mechanisms to act in facing threats that have no borders. that are transnational by their very nature. thesere threats that are not just tied into drug traffickings which transnational, of course. and i'll give you two examples of success stories that i was mentioning this morning. one, the attempt to take to mexico one of the children of gadhafi. it was headed up by a canadian businesswoman who hired an american company which hired in turn mexican pilots and
counterfeiters. and this multinational operation would not have been avoided without the international security mechanisms that we didn't have before but that now we have. also, the being able to avoid the assassination of the saudi ambassador here in washington would not have been possible without the mechanisms of cooperation that we have today. so thinking that what happens in mexico doesn't have anything to do with the security of the citizens of this country, or of any other citizen of north america is a mistak we have to understand that we are all tied to one another. now, security understood in the regional sense, to understand that, we have to understand where the great threats to security lay. the united states has a clear id of its threat, of its security priorities.
the threat of terrorism, of international terrorism. terrible attacks on the u.s. people. another threat clearly is in the power of transnational organized crime which i insist is not crime or organizations that are strictly mexican in nature. they don't have a nationality or in just one country. they might be right here. in washington, for example, the number of homicides per 100,000 inhabitants is higher by more than 10 or 20 than the largest number in any of the big cities in mexico. these are international organizations that have a growing destructive capacity that act well beyond borders and threaten anyone anywhere. it is true, the efforts that we undertake clearly make it possible to contain that threat
and to prevent it from acting in society. not just in the united states or canada but even in mexico. and that explains why, for instance, despite the perception of my cotry, last year, 23 millionousts came to our country by plane, plus another 7 million in cruise ships. plus another 50 million who crossed the border, the land borders. so that's also why there are 2 million mexicans living comfortably in mexico and many more living also here who came to visit us here and wanted to see us in the white house. and that's also why 1.6 million canadians come to mexico every year. that's 5% of the canadian population that travels to mexico every year. and that also explains why despite the fact that a state such as texas recommends that
none of its young people should travel anywhere in mexico. that's why there are hundreds of thousands of young texans who go to mexico, enjoy it and why we haven't seen one single incident with u. spring breakers in mexico this past spring, for instance. great concern becausehese are multinational criminal organizations, and the mechanisms, of course, to face them, defeat them have to be multinational, in addition to the solidarity, expressions of solidarity of president obama who says that he cannot stand aside from the expressions of threat that are facing a neighbor of his. that vulnerability from an institutional point of mexico and central america impacts and jeopardizes all of the citizens of north america. thank you very much, everyone. >> we were just watching the news conference being held by
president obama as well as mexico's president calderon and stephen harper. also those leaders taking questions. the "news nation," we'll have more on that. we're also following news at the end of this hour. new video ott of the fbi on the scene where trayvon martin was killed last month. the agents of the fbi have been there since this morning. a bureau official says they are conducting what is being called a paralle investigation into the case and focusing on whether trayvon martin's civil rights were violated when george zimmerman shot him february 26th. meantime, trayvon martin's parents are expected to file a formal request for an investigation into state attorney norm wolfinger. according to the web sources, he this indicate that wolfinger overrode the effort by the lead detective to charge zimmerman with manslaughter the night of the shooting. >> i'm doing this for god. i'm doing this for trayvon.
so it just makes me press forward to know we have to get justice for my son so his death is not in vain. >> this all comes as the orlando sentinel newspaper reports, it had two experts in forensic voice analysis, analyzing the screaming heard on the 911 the night of the shooting. both say the voice does not belong to george zimmerman. the grand jury is not expected to meet for eight more days. joining me now, marcia clark. she has a new book, guilt by degrees. we did ask our viewers to submit questions to you to get some answers as we wait to see what happens next. i want to get to one of the first ones. a lot of people are asking, what are the alternatives if there is no arrest in this case? >> if there is no arrest immediately by the state authorities, then hopefully the feds will step in and determine whether or not this is a case they can file.
if there are civil rights implications. if this is shown to be a hate crime based on the remarks made by zimmerman on the 911 tape, the feds can certainly step in and file charges here under the 1983, that is section 1983 civil rights act. if that does not happen, then the martin family would have the ability to file a civil suit. >> and i want to skip ahead. we have just a short amount of time with you. as i mentioned this report out of the orlando paper that two so-called voice experts used different technology and came to the same conclusion. that person scrming in the background was not george zimmerman. can voice analysis of the 911 tapes conclusively determine who was screaming? and i'll follow up on that. that be used in court? >> yes, i believe it can. something like this would be subject to objection by the defense. they would certainly say this is some kind of a new scientific
test that doesn't meet the standards of legal ad missibility and reliability. i think ultimately the judge lets it in and lets the jury determine what weight to give this testimony. i think it is very compelling evidence. it will be very, very informative on the issue of whether george zimmerman was acting in self-defense and i think very powerful evidence for the prosecution. >> and marcia, at this point, as you well know, there is a great concern about tim pact the rallies will have. at least from george zimmerman's attorney's perspective. how much of an influence if any all of this will have. how much influence if any does the public's rush to judgment have in a high profile case like this? and he obviously believes there is a public rush to judgment here. >> there may be. it is natural for people to fm an opinion when they get evidence, they get information. ople are watching the story on
television as it unfolds. they're forming opinions. it is a human thing. you won't stop people from doing that. the ultimate test when you pick a jury is not whether or not they formed an opinion but whether they can set that opinion aside and open their mind to the evidence psented in court and evaluate it clearly. if we require jurors to have no knowledge of big news stories like this before they could qualify to be a jury, we would never have a jury. the legal question is can you set your opinion aside and we all should. as the news continues to develop, a it's more information is brought to us, we have to open our minds and listen to it and evaluate it fairly. is there going to be a problem posed by the defense in terms of bias in the jury pool based on the reality? certainly. the defense will argue that there are problems. you can't pick a fair jury, et cetera. by, i assume, that i the time this case actually goes to trial, things will be substantially calmer and you will be able to impanel a fair jury. >> let me get this one more
question in. how could a self-defense claim ever be valid if western person has a gun and the other is unarmed. how did george zimmerman have a gun when he had three violent arrests on records. two labeled domestic violence. throws obviously two questions. the notion of self-defense when one person is armed and another is not. >> well, of course, you start out with a, with an inequity. one person is completely unarld. not even a knife. the other has a gun which is hugely powerful. and that is capable of inflicting lethal force at a distance. there is immediately in the mind of any rational person an unfairness to it. could there be a valid self-defense? there possibly could. if i may it out that george zimmerman sees trayvon reach in his pocket in a manner that is threatening, that looks like he has a gun.
he makes a statement to george zimmerman like i'm going to shoot you now. something like that. then there could be under some circumstances of that nature a valid defense. do i see that here? not yet. it certainly doesn't seem to be the case. it seems to me if there was in fact a confrontation and a scuffle between them, which has been indicated thus far, then zimmerman had every opportunity to know that trayvon was not armed. and in that case, the use of let's force is completely unjust fibl. >> we had more time built in but obviously, the time with the president obviously very important. we will hopefully get you back on and have more analysis has the continues with eight more days before the grand jury convenes. now let me bring in msnbc contributor toure. you made a lot of headlines yourself you made an appearance on cnn with piers morgan. a lot of talk about how this is being played out in the media. one of our questions was a rush to judgment.
you tweeted out an apology today to people who follow you. what were you apologizing for in reference to this case? >> what i want to do is get information about the case and seek justice for trayvon. the right thing happens. and i don't know what that is. i don't know if that means a conviction but i know we need to judge the evidence in a court of law. if the media doesn't help push this toward that, then we may never get to that point of justice. when i became part of the story and allowed it to become -- >> why do you say that? >> obviously the media was important and trayvon martin's family points to reverend al sharpton and so many other names we don't know who push for this. and we would not be at this point, had there not been an intervention. had there not been people who were brave enough to hear the cries of this family. so there is no negating the role that twitter, the media, reverend al and others have played in this. we would not be here. what are you apologizing for? >> i was angry that a certain amount of misinformation was
allowed to come over the airwaves unchallenged. and piers is allowing somebody to tell whatever story they wanted to. it was a pr stunt for the family. >> who did he allow on in your opinion? i don't want to get too caught up in it. >> robert zimmerman, george zimmerman's brother, who has not spoken to george in years. he said i spoke to george and he said this, that and the other. the whole interview was problematic. there were questions that were not asked. and i went out to challenge him and say, hey, spreading misinformation is not helping america and not a journalist, being the best we can be in this important moment in american history. and it went from that into a more sort of ego contest. and that i was disappointed in myself that it became that. it shouldn't be about that. >> let me take on that one program and you here. we're hearing a lot of people who are saying the media should get out of this. the investigation is underway.
that somehow the great work of so many who have said, listen, we don't know if this man is guilty but we know there are legitimate questions here, who have come forward like the reverend al sharpton and being criticized here on. a national scale, what is your take here? are we supposed to back out now? >> no, look. journalists can have an opinion. that doesn't mean you're not a journalist. we sometime can become advocates for what is right when we see that the voiceless need a voice. we can be that as we talked before about in hurricane katrina, many journalists from many different networks were down there saying, hey, the right thing is not happening. america, government, we need to intervene here. americans are dying and being treated like they're worthless. and those moments happen every once in a while where the media needs to stand up and shine a light on something that's wrong. and not stand back in a sort of pollyanna way and say, well, we're going to be objective. and we're going to see -- no. there is a clear need for the media sometimes to be advocates.
and this is definitely one of those situations. we would not be here with the fbi and the department of justice, digging into this case, if not for the media. and i mean the traditional media as well as -- >> you're not saying advocate for one side or the other. advocate for the truth. advocate for what happened if george zimmerman were injured in the way that he has said, then investigate the situation. investigate the video. even the mayor of sanford says the 911 calls, he wanted to release them. >> the justice department, the sanford police department, arrived on the scene and decided, we don't need to go further with. this we're satisfied with what's going on. the media then picked up the investigation and did what the sanford police department should have done in the beginning. and that is forcing the justice system to act in this case. that is righteous. that is what kneed should do. this is a moment where the media has done the right thing. we're not saying he should be
convicted. we're saying he should be tried. >> and asking questions is not a rush to jlt. we are supposed to ask questis. i think a lot of people appreciated your apology on twitter as you gave i guess a self-analysis of well of how this is playing out. thank you. i want to get to some news quickly. out of oakland, california, police are responding to a report of five people hurt. a shooting at a christian university in east oakland. the shooting happened at this university. this is some of the video we're getting in. this is video showing pe wounded. they've been brought in. officers have surrounded the building. it is unclear if the suspect is still on the scene. oakland police have not immediately returned any calls to the associated press. we're keeping an eye on this situation. ahooting at a religious school. we're not sure exactly the severity of the injuries but five people, we're told, according to the ap were hurt in this. thank you for joining us for this hour. we'll of course have much more for you tomorrow. "news tion." i'm tamron hall. what's with you?
is the pain reliever orthopedic doctors recommend most for arthritis pain, think again. and take aleve. it's the one doctors recommend most for arthritis pain. two pills can last all day. ♪ does this faucet make me look fat? probably because of the lead i can pick up in your pipes. luckily, pur water filters remove 99% of lead. ahh, now i can fit into my skinny glass. hello.
i worked at the colorado springs mail processing plant for 22 years. we processed on a given day about a million pieces of mail. checks, newspapers, bills. a lot of people get their medications only through the mail. small businesses depend on this processing plant. they want to shut down 3000 post offices, cut 100,000 jobs. they're gonna be putting people out of work everywhere. the american people depend on the postal service.
listen closely. >> 911, do you need police, fire or medical? >> maybe both. i'm not sure. there is someone screaming outside. i think they're yelling help but i don't know. >> new questions over the screams for help heard on the 911 call. has science finally proven that this is not george zimmerman's voice after all? >> does he look hurt? >> i can't see him. i don't know what's going on. >> plus,ç if zimmerman was so badly beaten, why was the second ambulance not needed? the world waits for answers.